Chess is a Sport.

Sort:
LeraiOg
Optimissed wrote:
LeraiOg wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
LeraiOg wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Bodies like the IOC have vested interests in that there would be financial incentives to have chess recognised as a sport. Therefore their "opinion" isn't an honest opinion because they stand to gain if it's accepted. It being accepted might well lead to things we don't like. It would hardly benefit ordinary chess players and might well make the game more expensive to indulge in, competitively. It would be another gravy train with people trying to make money out of us. We therefore dont wish it to be recognised as a sport. That's disregarding the ridiculousness.

I'm not going to say "who is 'we'" again but seriously who is 'we'.

How would chess being recognised as a sport make the game more expensive to indulge in? That is completely false, and who is making money off us? Your points are increasinly becoming devoid of facts and logic and you are simply going into a heedless tangent.

Chess being virtually recognized as being a sport will in fact bring in more sponsors to the players who are struggling financially to dedicate their life to chess full-time.

"That's disregarding the ridiculouslness".... what are you talking about in general??

Clearly you are incapable of forming a discussion without lies and deciet hidden under your large sprinkle of prattle

I would be talking for people who think like me. They do exist. I will tell you rather strongly that I don't generally lie when I make posts here. Perhaps you don't understand me. I definitely think you have a problem and I didn't like to point it out previously. I sort of wanted to give you a chance. Maybe you were having an off day, I thought.

I thought I made it clear that I'm not interested in people who play chess for a living. That's their choice. Very often they try to win prizes in tournaments, give chess lessons, maybe write books or make videos. I'm not interested in them and see no reason why they should be supported by the artificial provision of prize money. I don't even like that kind of thinking. If a chess player finds himself capable of supporting himself and a family by means of chess then that's great.

However, artificially funding people to lead what are basically going to be unproductive lives requires money and that money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is you and me and I would tend to resist very strongly what you propose. If you think I'm lying or deceitful, that would appear to be your problem. I don't particularly like being "spoken" to the way you have spoken to me. Is that clear?

Stop waffling brother

You know where the money comes from to fund these multi-million dollar tournaments? It's definetely not from us.... It's from sponsors.

Anyone with half a brain would know that. I think you are either trolling or a very young child to make arguements that are not backed up by anything whatsoever.

I have analysed your previous posts and have concluded that you are only looking for attention,

Tóg go bog é

Are you mentally ill, brother?

Why are you shying away off what you wrote yourself?

How is chess being recognized as a sport by everyone going to make our chess experience more expensive?

Soufriere
Optimissed wrote:
Soufriere wrote:
long_quach wrote:
QuarteredFOV wrote:

What is missing in your life that this adamance fills? That's the one part of this I'll admit to finding fascinating.

Chinese philosophy demands that you see thing from both the Ying point of view as well as the Yang point of view.

What is missing in your life that you do consider chess a sport?

What is missing in your life that you don't consider chess a sport?

Lol I like that response! Well said.

I don't think so. He seems to know nothing about Chinese philosophy, because he's focussing on the negative. It's assumptive (that everything is seen from the point of view that chess is a sport) and there's also no synthesis. Chinese philosophy would take a thesis (that chess is not or is a sport), find the antithesis and then look for a synthesis, a little along the lines of Hegelian ideas but predating them by about 3000 years. The moving lines in the hexagrams indicate change, not fixedness. He's only looking for fixed principles.

It has been years since I've 'heard' someone mentioning Hegelian dialectic. Long_Quach writing style is more in line with Buddhist Koan. I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to succinctly counter the argument of QuarteredFOV who fell prey to the ad hominem fallacy.

One of these days I'll delve more into Chinese Philosophy. The Great Courses has wonderful educational lectures on eastern and western philosophies. There is also a lecture on chess by IM Silman.

omgag55

chess is sport lol

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I don't think so. He seems to know nothing about Chinese philosophy.

Chess is one of the 4 classical arts of ancient China.

琴 music

棋 chess

書 calligraphy, poetry

畫 painting

Notice sports is not any one of them.

That does make some sense. Are you now saying chess is more an art and not a sport?

Why do you suppose the Chinese precluded chess from being a sport given how much value they put on sports?

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

In my opinion all sports are mind sports. They say golf . . .

Golf is not a sport. It has no martial origin.

Except you have absolutely no clue if that's true or not. Chinese historians say golf originated in China, not Scotland. Not to mention there is obviously no requirement a sport have any martial origin. We could all name dozens of sports that have no martial origin.

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

In my opinion all sports are mind sports. They say golf . . .

Golf is not a sport. It has no martial origin.

Except you have absolutely no clue if that's true or not. Chinese historians say golf originated in China, not Scotland. Not to mention there is obviously no requirement a sport have any martial origin. We could all name dozens of sports that have no martial origin.

If it doesn't have a martial origin, it is not a sport.

Said nobody. Ever.

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:

I'll start. I'll name a sport and tell you its martial origin.

And you name a sport.

Boxing.

Obvious.

Your turn.

Hockey, football, basketball, soccer, baseball, tennis, auto racing, bowling, pickleball, etc, etc.

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
If it doesn't have a martial origin, it is not a sport.

Said nobody. Ever.

You do know that practically every sport has a martial origin?

Name me a sport (not golf), and you tell me its martial origin.

Don't you think it's slightly odd that you are the only person that doesn't consider golf a sport? If the ancient Chinese considered it a sport (chuiwan) why wouldn't you? And before chuiwan, which means stick ball, they had budajiu. Which is probably more like hockey.

Hockey, golf, polo, tennis, baseball, and probably a hundred more. They are all sports where someone uses a stick to hit a ball.

lfPatriotGames
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

In my opinion all sports are mind sports. They say golf . . .

Golf is not a sport. It has no martial origin.

Except you have absolutely no clue if that's true or not. Chinese historians say golf originated in China, not Scotland. Not to mention there is obviously no requirement a sport have any martial origin. We could all name dozens of sports that have no martial origin.

If it doesn't have a martial origin, it is not a sport.

I can see the reasoning because fighting is to do with mastery of weapons, strength, agility, speed and stamina.

However, I have an objection. Sorry but I fail to agree that tossing the caber has a martial origin.

So you lose!

I agree. Rarely do we see strength displayed in a 3 hour game of chess. Speed and agility in a bullet game maybe. But strength not so much.

Until long quach I've never heard of anyone ever insisting a martial origin for something to be a sport. But given his creative excuses for other sports it's surprising he wouldn't say golf has martial origins too, just like other stick ball sports.

I've always thought sports were physical recreational competitions. I think Ziryab posted a long time ago sport used to mean an activity for merriment, or pasttime.

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Rarely do we see strength displayed in a 3 hour game of chess.

Tactics and strategy. That is what chess is. It came from war itself.

We might be using different dictionaries to define words. I was using the word strength, thinking it was the same way Optimissed was using it. Physical muscle strength. Not tactics and strategy, which are mental abilities.

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Until long quach I've never heard of anyone ever insisting a martial origin for something to be a sport. But given his creative excuses

Again, that's name calling, not a reasoning.

I play tennis.

I have never touched a sword.

I bet if we pick up swords, I'd decapitate you, Highlander style.

Well they sure look like excuses to me. You said tennis has martial qualities, a projectile and whatnot. How is that different than other stickball sports like golf, hockey, pickleball, baseball, etc?

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:

Champion tennis player versus champion golf player in a sword fight to the death.

I'm betting on the tennis player.

How about we not let ourselves get too sidetracked. You said tennis has martial qualities. How is that different than other stickball sports like those mentioned?

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:

@lfPatriotGames

Golf has no martial origins.

I understand you believe that, for some reason. But it's a stick hitting a ball. Just like hockey, just like tennis. Just like baseball. Just like pickleball. Just like cricket. Etc, etc.

Do you believe using a stick in a methodical skilful way on a target is NOT a martial quality? Do you believe only tennis players use a stick in a martial way, and hockey players or golfers do NOT use the stick in a martial way?

lfPatriotGames
long_quach wrote:

@lfPatriotGames

Think for a moment.

What interferes with a golfer delivering a ball into a hole? Nothing.

In hockey, there's an army interfering with your life and limb. That's called a war game.

In hockey, they put on a helmet and armor, as if they were going to war in ancient times.

The same thing that interferes with a tennis player hitting a ball across the net.

Nothing.

Ziryab

Donald Trump plays golf. If it is a sport, then Ben Finegold no longer stands as evidence against the claim that chess is.

LeraiOg
long_quach wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I think you believe that any show of strength has a martial origin. That's not so.

Do you even hear yourself talk?

If you show that you are stronger, people wouldn't even want to fight you to begin with.

By this logic everyone should bulk, go to the gym and become giants

MaetsNori
long_quach wrote:

Champion tennis player versus champion golf player in a sword fight to the death.

I'm betting on the tennis player.

We can do it again with slingshots. I'm betting on a tennis player.

To the death.

Why are you giving them swords?

Give them the equipment that they play with: tennis racket and tennis balls vs. golf clubs and golf balls.

The golfer will fire projectiles at the tennis player from 200 yards away.

The tennis player will be forced to play defense - trying to bat away the golf balls as they come hurtling toward his body and head. The golf balls will puncture the tennis player's racket, rendering it useless.

It's almost certain that the tennis player will suffer serious injury before he even gets close enough to the golfer. And even if he gets close enough to engage in close-combat, a set of metal golf clubs will do more damage than a light-weight tennis racket.

This is a lose-lose scenario for the tennis player.

Next scenario! tongue.png

MaetsNori

Well, to be fair, sitting behind a tree would be excellent defense against a golfer.

That scenario would be a stalemate, I'm guessing.

MaetsNori
long_quach wrote:

@IronSteam1

Now you are thinking.

...

At close quarters, the tennis player can serve a ball in the direction of the golfer ala a shuriken, and move in for close quarters combat.

Lol. Well, I do agree with you that a tennis player wins when it comes to agility.

I have twenty free minutes to devote to chess study, but now you have me pondering a bizarre Tennis Player vs. Golfer battle to the death ...

lfPatriotGames
IronSteam1 wrote:
long_quach wrote:

Champion tennis player versus champion golf player in a sword fight to the death.

I'm betting on the tennis player.

We can do it again with slingshots. I'm betting on a tennis player.

To the death.

Why are you giving them swords?

Give them the equipment that they play with: tennis racket and tennis balls vs. golf clubs and golf balls.

The golfer will fire projectiles at the tennis player from 200 yards away.

The tennis player will be forced to play defense - trying to bat away the golf balls as they come hurtling toward his body and head. The golf balls will puncture the tennis player's racket, rendering it useless.

It's almost certain that the tennis player will suffer serious injury before he even gets close enough to the golfer. And even if he gets close enough to engage in close-combat, a set of metal golf clubs will do more damage than a light-weight tennis racket.

This is a lose-lose scenario for the tennis player.

Next scenario!

That's all true. The best golfers against the best tennis players wouldn't be much of a fair fight. The best golfers generate club head speeds of over 150mph and some over 200mph. Even amateur golfers have dangerous golf ball speed, which is why so many people have died or been maimed from golf ball injuries.

A golfer and a tennis player squaring off against each other with their own equipment and skill sets would put the tennis player at a substantial risk of death, while the golfer would be at risk of a slight bruise.